Tougher and mandatory sentencing

This could arguably go in the Crime and Punishments or even Politics section, but I’m not talking a specific crime so think it’s good here.

Anyway, I’ve been thinking about the trend towards mandatory (where the judge has little discretion) and tougher sentencing. Lo and behold Boris throws a log on the fire.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...automatically/

Quote:

The Prime Minister will pledge to end the automatic release of serious criminals who are currently freed after serving half of their sentence. He will press for a tougher stance on sentencing at a roundtable meeting in No 10 on Monday with police chiefs, prosecutors, former judges, courts administrators and prison bosses.

We now have public outrage about lenient sentencing in many parts of the world, including Australia, and politicians trying to prove who is “tougher on crime”. Victims lobby groups are becoming more vocal and influential. New prisons popping up like mushrooms. Police forces growing in staffing and power. Etc etc.

Yet our societies don’t seem to be safer and more secure (yes I’ve read that gun violence in the US is decreasing, but it is still at an unacceptable level in my view). Rehabilitation might be a stated objective of justice systems, but when some gets a set sentence of 30 years without parole, how is rehabilitation really working?

So my question. Is tougher sentencing a good or bad thing and why?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2H2RfSg